I also don't like that they manipulate numbers & say things like "ppl are taking more money from government than they are paying in taxes". They want you to think of welfare recipients. In reality all of the civil servant salaries in the U.S. can be considered money from the government. Are they moochers? I think not. Even those on social security. They are withdrawing on money they contributed. They worked hard all their lives & many of them lost money during the recession, come on.

Originally Posted by ss40

Actually, after the last election, they were saying exactly that, at least they were here and in Wisconsin.

Obama seemed very distracted last night. It made me think there will be something major coming up soon in the news.

To me, it was an underhanded way of calling Obama a BOY. Romney's sons are men...in their 30's and 40's. He said it as boys on purpose. We all know why.

Originally Posted by RedCatWaves

Women in our part of PA are referred to as girls. It is a colloquialism. Just the way we say it. I know you are an Obama supporter, but WOW that is a stretch. I did not and don't think anyone else took that statement as Romney calling Obama a boy.

I rank this thinking right up there with all the people who were making Big Bird a big issue.

I think this is one big thing that is wrong with supporters on both sides. They try to twist what was said be what they want it to be; i.e., Romney never said he "likes to fire people". He said he likes to be able to "fire people who provide a service for him"; i.e., contractor, hairdresser, healthcare provider (someone whose services you are displeased with).

I'm undecided. I want each side to be upfront and honest with me to win my vote.

Originally Posted by munchkin

+1

Originally Posted by curlypearl

Mitt isn't from PA. So colloquialism doesn't really apply to that statement. It really wasn't a stretch. He's like a decade older than Obama which puts his early days right in a time where the phrase could have come off as racially inappropriate.

The real victories for Obama are taking place in courtrooms where voter suppression is being stopped. Pa, Ohio, etc. we peeped where the GOP was going with their "fight against voter fraud". Now they have water money on a false campaign.

I agree with rcw about the "boy" insult. I was watching it with my sis and when he said that we both caught the shade. It was totally deliberate.

To those undecided, are you undecided between Obama and Romney or between those two, or one of the two, and the third party candidates?if its the former, what haven't you seen that you need to see in order to make a decision? We've had 4 years with Obama so we know him well. Romney has shown himself and if you've been paying attention to the news I don't know how you could be on the fence with him. Aside from politics they have a significant contrast in personality. I'm just wondering because I'm really trying to understand.

I also don't like that they manipulate numbers & say things like "ppl are taking more money from government than they are paying in taxes". They want you to think of welfare recipients. In reality all of the civil servant salaries in the U.S. can be considered money from the government. Are they moochers? I think not. Even those on social security. They are withdrawing on money they contributed. They worked hard all their lives & many of them lost money during the recession, come on.

Originally Posted by ss40

Actually, after the last election, they were saying exactly that, at least they were here and in Wisconsin.

Obama seemed very distracted last night. It made me think there will be something major coming up soon in the news.

I agree with rcw about the "boy" insult. I was watching it with my sis and when he said that we both caught the shade. It was totally deliberate.

To those undecided, are you undecided between Obama and Romney or between those two, or one of the two, and the third party candidates?if its the former, what haven't you seen that you need to see in order to make a decision? We've had 4 years with Obama so we know him well. Romney has shown himself and if you've been paying attention to the news I don't know how you could be on the fence with him. Aside from politics they have a significant contrast in personality. I'm just wondering because I'm really trying to understand.

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by CocoT

I have the same question for those who are undecided. I'm not talking about the octomom and kim kardashian who are not the bright anyways. I dont see how minority would even consider voting for Romney.

I also don't like that they manipulate numbers & say things like "ppl are taking more money from government than they are paying in taxes". They want you to think of welfare recipients. In reality all of the civil servant salaries in the U.S. can be considered money from the government. Are they moochers? I think not. Even those on social security. They are withdrawing on money they contributed. They worked hard all their lives & many of them lost money during the recession, come on.

Originally Posted by ss40

Actually, after the last election, they were saying exactly that, at least they were here and in Wisconsin.

Obama seemed very distracted last night. It made me think there will be something major coming up soon in the news.

Originally Posted by Poodlehead

I had the same thought, Poodlehead.

Originally Posted by B-wavy

I had this same thought and I do get the feeling that something is brewing. He just looked too preoccupied-unusual.

I hope this was a plan to give R a false sense of hope, and then just take it right back next week in the VP debates and the next presidential debate. I HOPE SO!

ITA with the "boy" comment. Very underhanded. R knew what he was doing.

Each debate will be streamed live online. Check back here for the live stream.
October 3, 2012President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Watch Full Debate Video
Topic: Domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: University of Denver in Denver, Colorado (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)

The debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.

The debate will cover both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.
October 16, 2012
President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Topic: Town meeting format including foreign and domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Candy Crowley (CNN Chief Political Correspondent)

The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. Candidates each will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion. The town meeting participants will be undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization.

I really hope they change the format. Because that format was ridiculous and Romney was such a big bully and derailed it completely. NO RESPECT...why would anyone even vote for him when he clearly showed his a$$ yesterday???

Except that a trial is decided on the basis of proven facts and evidence. You can't just come in and spout off your opinion.

Originally Posted by Amneris

I've seen many trials on TV (48 Hours, etc.) where each side's expert has a different set of facts (or as I call it, a different opinion).

Originally Posted by munchkin

They may choose to highlight or question different facts, but there still has to be a factual basis for the information given. You can't say "Well, there were fingerprints at the scene and they've been tested and shown to be the accused's fingerprints, and there are ten witnesses saying they saw the accused there, and the accused confessed to doing it, but my opinion is that he didn't do it because he is a nice guy."

You can say "Well, his fingerprints were there, but he was there earlier that day, and there are ten witnesses, but it's cross-racial identification / it was dark and they couldn't see clearly / the police did the ID improperly and made suggestions to the witnesses, and the accused confessed but he has a low IQ and was improperly coerced into it by the police and denied his rights, so there is insufficient evidence to convict." You'd need some proof he was there earlier through a witness or something, an exert on the problems with cross-racial identification, testimony from the witnesses as to sloppy work by the police, etc. for this theory to be given any weight. It isn't just some lawyer's crazy opinion.

Originally Posted by Amneris

I have seen "expert" witnesses regarding someone's mental state and the other side's expert disagrees. I have seen "expert" witnesses regarding blood spatter and the other side's expert disagrees. If something is a clear cut fact, I know it can't be disputed but there are many so called "facts" out there that aren't clear cut and two different experts can come to two different conclusions. That is all I am saying.

Women in our part of PA are referred to as girls. It is a colloquialism. Just the way we say it. I know you are an Obama supporter, but WOW that is a stretch. I did not and don't think anyone else took that statement as Romney calling Obama a boy.

I rank this thinking right up there with all the people who were making Big Bird a big issue.

I think this is one big thing that is wrong with supporters on both sides. They try to twist what was said be what they want it to be; i.e., Romney never said he "likes to fire people". He said he likes to be able to "fire people who provide a service for him"; i.e., contractor, hairdresser, healthcare provider (someone whose services you are displeased with).

I'm undecided. I want each side to be upfront and honest with me to win my vote.

Originally Posted by munchkin

+1

Originally Posted by curlypearl

Mitt isn't from PA. So colloquialism doesn't really apply to that statement. It really wasn't a stretch. He's like a decade older than Obama which puts his early days right in a time where the phrase could have come off as racially inappropriate.

Every teardrop is a waterfall

Originally Posted by ss40

I never said Mitt was from PA. I was using our local way (colloquialism) of saying girls as an example. He probably just refers to his kids as boys. It is a real stretch in my mind to come up with him calling Obama a boy. Your side is losing me on this one.

It is untrue that the Church only recognizes marriages between baptized persons. As the OP acknowledges, permission can be obtained to marry a non-Christian and if instruction is taken, they can be married in the Church. I have been to plenty of those marriages.

It is untrue that a non-Catholic can't marry a Catholic in the Church, as was said elsewhere. As long as counselling and instruction are taken and the non-Catholic states that they are open to raising any children of the marriage Catholic, they can be married in the Church. I have been to plenty of those marriages as well.

It is also untrue that divorced persons cannot marry in the Catholic church. They require annulments and counselling. In some dioceses those are easier to get than in others, and as the OP pointed out, permission may be late or slow in coming, but there is no absolute bar to marriage in those circumstances either. Again, I have been to plenty of those marriages.

Two Catholics getting married also have to take counselling and courses. Marriage is a sacrament in the Church and the Church takes it seriously and provides the procedures it views as important. For those who do not want the hassle, there is civil marriage (which, as is pointed out, is the only legally recognized form of marriage anyway. Divorced persons usually have to get a civil divorce before they can start the Church process.)

As to the full nuptial mass, not being a Catholic is not an absolute bar to having one either. In my experience, priests generally don't recommend them where one person is not a Catholic because they cannot receive the eucharist, nor can their non-Catholic friends and relatives, and it is divisive on a day which is about unity. But if they choose, they can have mass and the non-Catholics can be blessed or not go forward. It's no different than attending a regular mass - anyone can attend but not all can receive.

Originally Posted by Amneris

My brother and his late wife were unable to be married in her Catholic church because he wouldn't agree to raise them Catholic. He told her, the priest, and a counselor that he would raise them Christian and to understand that Jesus was their lord and Savior. That wasn't good enough so they were married elsewhere.

Just saw this article on Yahoo -- 'Obama mocks Romney as ‘getting tough on Big Bird’

DENVER—President Barack Obama, stung by bad reviews in his first debate of the 2012 White House race, joked that the "very spirited fellow" onstage with him was "not the real Mitt Romney." Obama also mocked the former Massachusetts governor's pledge to cut government subsidies for PBS as "finally getting tough on Big Bird."

"When I got onto the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney," he told cheering supporters here. "But it couldn't have been Mitt Romney, because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy."
"The fellow onstage last night said he didn't know anything about that," Obama said. The president then gave the same treatment to Romney on education and other issues—and hit back at one of Romney's debate zingers, "I maybe need to get a new accountant," uttered in a spat about outsourcing and whether companies can take a tax deduction for shipping jobs overseas.

"We know for sure it was not the real Mitt Romney because he seems to be doing just fine with his current accountant," Obama said.
The president also riffed on Romney's vow to rein in government subsidies for things like PBS. Romney said at the debate that "I like PBS. I love Big Bird. ... But I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it."

"Thank goodness somebody is finally getting tough on Big Bird," Obama said. "We didn't know that Big Bird was driving the federal deficit." Someone in the crowd shouted, "And Elmo!" "Elmo too?" Obama said with a smile.
Obama's wry comments—comebacks to criticisms Romney leveled the night before—came as a top aide told reporters the president's campaign would likely make "adjustments" to its approach to future debates.

At the Denver rally, DJ will.i.am tried to set the mood before the president spoke, playing a song touting "a new day" and a remixed version of Journey's karaoke favorite "Don't Stop Believin'" as the crowd massed in Sloan's Lake Park sang along. Some 12,300 people turned out to see the president, according to a city and county of Denver official.

"A lot of us came out here because of last night, to let him know 'Don't worry, we're still here,'" said Mary-Ellen Turner, a 64-year-old homeopath wrapped in a green sleeping bag for warmth in the morning chill. "But it's good for us too."
"This makes me feel better after last night, you know. Seeing all these people out for the president. I was worried, I'll tell you," said Jack Walker, 76, a retired Greyhound bus driver.

Turner and Walker, who said they met in line, were unhappy and unsettled about Obama's subdued debate performance.
"I thought he should have attacked him [Romney] more, been more assertive," said Turner. "I don't know, maybe it'll all work out."

"I really hope that was a strategy to make Romney look like the bully he is, an attack dog. But I don't know if that's what really was going on," she said.
Democratic Sen. Mark Udall told the crowd that Obama had been "thoughtful, dignified, substantive and truthful." "He told us what he's for," Udall said, as the crowd cheered.

Udall later told reporters that the Obama campaign's energy level was "a little low this morning." "But campaigns are peaks and valleys," he added with a shrug.

Top Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod told reporters on a conference call about the fight going forward that "we're going to take a hard look at this" and "I'm sure we will make adjustments."

"He may win the Oscar for his performance last night, but he's not going to win the presidency for his performance last night," Axelrod insisted, saying Romney's strong showing "can't make up for the gap" in battleground states that will decide the election.

As far as him using the word 'boys', he and Ann have that way about them when it comes to talking about their family. I bet there's thousands of instances of him saying 'my boys' while talking to members of the public on the campaign trail.

I really don't think it was a slight at Obama...that wouldn't serve him well anyway.

Did anyone catch how he said "poor kids" and then fear washed over him and he corrected it to "low income kids"...it was a very brief moment, but it's obvious he was trying hard not to step in anything.

He's not going to win points with the electorate already behind him and undecideds by calling Obama a boy.

If some people thought they caught that and relished in it, rather than were offended, it's not a number he needs to court. There's a much bigger number he needs to court that would be offput by that.

Mitt isn't from PA. So colloquialism doesn't really apply to that statement. It really wasn't a stretch. He's like a decade older than Obama which puts his early days right in a time where the phrase could have come off as racially inappropriate.

Every teardrop is a waterfall

Originally Posted by ss40

I never said Mitt was from PA. I was using our local way (colloquialism) of saying girls as an example. He probably just refers to his kids as boys. It is a real stretch in my mind to come up with him calling Obama a boy. Your side is losing me on this one.

Originally Posted by munchkin

I got your point.

Boy or son is used often by racist ppl to make Black men feel inferior. Is Obama one of Mitt's sons? Is he a child? Does Mitt believe Obama is inferior? Did he say anything like that to his counterparts during the Primary debates?

While it may seem like a stretch in your mind there are many ppl who caught Mitt's insinuation. No one is twisting his words. We are reading into his statements. Either way Mitt Romney flipped & flopped all over that stage.

You mentioned you are undecided, what do you want to hear the candidates say to convince you? I'm curious.

Mitt isn't from PA. So colloquialism doesn't really apply to that statement. It really wasn't a stretch. He's like a decade older than Obama which puts his early days right in a time where the phrase could have come off as racially inappropriate.

Every teardrop is a waterfall

Originally Posted by ss40

I never said Mitt was from PA. I was using our local way (colloquialism) of saying girls as an example. He probably just refers to his kids as boys. It is a real stretch in my mind to come up with him calling Obama a boy. Your side is losing me on this one.

Originally Posted by munchkin

You've never heard of slavery? You've never heard how derogatory the term "boy" is for a black man, or "gal" for a black woman? Seriously?

As far as him using the word 'boys', he and Ann have that way about them when it comes to talking about their family. I bet there's thousands of instances of him saying 'my boys' while talking to members of the public on the campaign trail.

I really don't think it was a slight at Obama...that wouldn't serve him well anyway.

Did anyone catch how he said "poor kids" and then fear washed over him and he corrected it to "low income kids"...it was a very brief moment, but it's obvious he was trying hard not to step in anything.

He's not going to win points with the electorate already behind him and undecideds by calling Obama a boy.

If some people thought they caught that and relished in it, rather than were offended, it's not a number he needs to court. There's a much bigger number he needs to court that would be offput by that.

Originally Posted by sew and sew

It was "coded". That "boy" line was a "zinger"...specifically crafted, rehearsed, and delivered to send a message. It was powerful...yet subtle.

Like Obama's "lipstick on a pig" line from last election cycle. That was an insult to Sarah Palin, to mock her convention speech where she said something similar. It was a crafted, rehearsed, and delivered zinger. Powerful, yet subtle enough that Obama could deny that he ever meant anything insulting by it. Of course he did. Of course Romney did with the "boy" line.